2014 (6) TMI 551

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3. The business premises of the appellant were visited by the Central Excise Officers on 24.05.2009 at 15.00 hrs. The proprietor of the unit was not available. However, Shri Vinod Kumar, brother of the proprietor was present and allowed the officer to undertake the verifications of the stock of raw materials as also finished goods. On checking of the stock, it was found that the that the raw materials as also final product was shifted to 1st floor of the house, whereas only ground floor was registered with the Department. Further the appellant also could not produce the statutory Central Excise records on account of the concerned person having gone to Kolkata. The officers, on the reasonable belief that the said goods were meant for cl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Assistant Commissioner was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal. 6. After hearing both the sides, I find that the only issue to be decided is as to whether the seized goods, which was kept at the first floor of the registered premises, is liable to confiscation on the findings that the same was cleared from the appellant factory, with a malafide intention to subsequently clear the same in a clandestine manner. It is seen that the appellant had taken a categorically stand before the authorities below that the material was temporarily shifted to first floor as the registered premises were being painted on account of the marriage ceremony in the family. The statutory records could not be produced on the visit of the ....